From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wxt@rock-chips.com, dianders@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in suspend Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:23:11 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57E0E97B.5000106@arm.com> Hi Marc, Thanks again for the help. I was checking with Rockchip on the details. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:07AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The counter is allowed to be clocked at a different rate, as long as it > is incremented by the frequency ratio on each tick of the new frequency. > In your case, the counter should increment by 750 on each tick of the > 32kHz clock. If the rk3399 implementation doesn't do this, then this is > a bug, and we need a quirk to work around it. I had hope that we could find a switch that would do the above for rk3399, since other parts of the system (e.g., the PMU itself) support switching from the 24MHz to 32KHz clock, but Rockchip confirmed that it is indeed a HW quirk that the arch timer's counter does not support clocking out ticks based on the 32KHz clock. So I'm planning to send a v2 that adds a "arm,no-tick-in-suspend" property. <Begin side note> rk3288 (ARMv7 system widely used for our Chromebooks) has the same issue, except the kernel we're using for production (based on v3.14) doesn't have the following commit, which stopped utilizing the RTC: commit 0fa88cb4b82b5cf7429bc1cef9db006ca035754e Author: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@linaro.org> Date: Wed Apr 1 20:34:38 2015 -0700 time, drivers/rtc: Don't bother with rtc_resume() for the nonstop clocksource And any mainline testing on rk3288 doesn't see the problem, because mainline doesn't support its lowest-power sleep modes well enough (see ROCKCHIP_ARM_OFF_LOGIC_DEEP in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c). <End side note> > Note that such a quirk will have some other impacts, such as the > gettimeofday implementation in the VDSO (which relies on the counter > making forward progress). There could be other issues in the timer > subsystem as well... This doesn't look like a pleasant thing to fix. How sure are you of these problems? I'm a bit new to the kernel timekeeping subsystem, but doesn't this kind of code already have to handle time adjustments like this when reprogramming the system time (settimeofday())? And might we be covered for the suspend/resume case when we allow the kernel to fall back to the RTC instead, which adjusts the sleep delta with timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64()? And (weaker evidence here) we haven't seen problems on rk3288 so far, at least without the above referenced rtc commit 0fa88cb4b82. But admittedly there are some differences between arch/{arm,arm64}/. Regards, Brian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: briannorris@chromium.org (Brian Norris) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in suspend Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:23:11 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160928012309.GA29518@localhost> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57E0E97B.5000106@arm.com> Hi Marc, Thanks again for the help. I was checking with Rockchip on the details. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:07AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The counter is allowed to be clocked at a different rate, as long as it > is incremented by the frequency ratio on each tick of the new frequency. > In your case, the counter should increment by 750 on each tick of the > 32kHz clock. If the rk3399 implementation doesn't do this, then this is > a bug, and we need a quirk to work around it. I had hope that we could find a switch that would do the above for rk3399, since other parts of the system (e.g., the PMU itself) support switching from the 24MHz to 32KHz clock, but Rockchip confirmed that it is indeed a HW quirk that the arch timer's counter does not support clocking out ticks based on the 32KHz clock. So I'm planning to send a v2 that adds a "arm,no-tick-in-suspend" property. <Begin side note> rk3288 (ARMv7 system widely used for our Chromebooks) has the same issue, except the kernel we're using for production (based on v3.14) doesn't have the following commit, which stopped utilizing the RTC: commit 0fa88cb4b82b5cf7429bc1cef9db006ca035754e Author: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@linaro.org> Date: Wed Apr 1 20:34:38 2015 -0700 time, drivers/rtc: Don't bother with rtc_resume() for the nonstop clocksource And any mainline testing on rk3288 doesn't see the problem, because mainline doesn't support its lowest-power sleep modes well enough (see ROCKCHIP_ARM_OFF_LOGIC_DEEP in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c). <End side note> > Note that such a quirk will have some other impacts, such as the > gettimeofday implementation in the VDSO (which relies on the counter > making forward progress). There could be other issues in the timer > subsystem as well... This doesn't look like a pleasant thing to fix. How sure are you of these problems? I'm a bit new to the kernel timekeeping subsystem, but doesn't this kind of code already have to handle time adjustments like this when reprogramming the system time (settimeofday())? And might we be covered for the suspend/resume case when we allow the kernel to fall back to the RTC instead, which adjusts the sleep delta with timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64()? And (weaker evidence here) we haven't seen problems on rk3288 so far, at least without the above referenced rtc commit 0fa88cb4b82. But admittedly there are some differences between arch/{arm,arm64}/. Regards, Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-28 1:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-09-16 5:49 [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in suspend Brian Norris 2016-09-16 5:49 ` Brian Norris 2016-09-16 5:49 ` Brian Norris 2016-09-16 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier 2016-09-16 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier [not found] ` <57DBA81F.2060404-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> 2016-09-16 8:10 ` Daniel Lezcano 2016-09-16 8:10 ` Daniel Lezcano 2016-09-19 23:14 ` Brian Norris 2016-09-19 23:14 ` Brian Norris 2016-09-20 7:47 ` Marc Zyngier 2016-09-20 7:47 ` Marc Zyngier 2016-09-28 1:23 ` Brian Norris [this message] 2016-09-28 1:23 ` Brian Norris 2016-09-29 16:08 ` Marc Zyngier 2016-09-29 16:08 ` Marc Zyngier 2016-10-04 17:49 ` Brian Norris 2016-10-04 17:49 ` Brian Norris 2016-10-19 1:24 ` Stephen Boyd 2016-10-19 1:24 ` Stephen Boyd 2016-10-19 1:36 ` Brian Norris 2016-10-19 1:36 ` Brian Norris 2016-10-19 1:36 ` Brian Norris 2016-10-19 1:55 ` Stephen Boyd 2016-10-19 1:55 ` Stephen Boyd
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160928012309.GA29518@localhost \ --to=briannorris@chromium.org \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \ --cc=dianders@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=wxt@rock-chips.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.